The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-17
RECORD OF THE COURTS.
Supreme Court.

Hon. Byron K Elliott. Chief-justice
The following opinions were rendered March
16:
1893. Marcus NJ. Towle vs. State ex rel.
Frederick Sh9naman ct al Lake O. G. AZ
frned Nlblack, J.-Substantially the same
facts were involved in Towle vs. Brown ire
Gently decidedly, and under that decision appel
lant's petition did not state facts sufficient.
BILL OF ExcEPTIoNs-EvIDENCE.
1854. Samuel Garrison VS.. State. Posey c.
G. Affirmed. Howk, 1.-THE bill of exceptions
concluded "Here the defendant rested his
by the plaintiff and the defendant on the trial
of this cause" Held that the record fails to
show that all the evidence given in the cause on
the trial thereof is properly on the record.
COUNTY CoMMIssIoNER-TERMo OF OFFICE.
1886 Clark B. Parcel vs.. State rel. Rob
ert A. Lowery. Pulaski c. G. Reversed.
Mitchell, Prom 1910 until 1882 the regular
succession Of the Board of Commissioners of
Pulaski county was maintained. in May. 1850.
one Seey, whose term commenced in 1879 and
fill the vacancy In October, 1880. TIE relator
was elected to fill out Seelys unexpired term.
In November 1882 he was reelected The
clerks certificate recited that relator elected
for term commencing Oct Ii. 1883 This was
year later than the actual commencement OF
the term. The reator assumed TO hold under
| his first election until Oct 2, 1883, when he
! qualified under the certificate last issued, and
| continued in Office until Dec. 6, 1886. In 1856
| appellant was elected and took his seat on Dec.
| 6. Suit by relator to recover the Office. The
relator having been elected his own successor in
| 1882, his second term of service must be deemed
| to have commenced at the regular period in 1882
He could not, by holding over after the explra-
ton of his first term, and failing to qualify until
| one year Of his second term had passed, extend
the latter term or make his second term COM
mence at an irregular period. He held over one
| year in the next term because no successor had
| been qualified, In 1886 appellant was elected
and was entitled to the Office for the unexpired
| term.
| FORMER NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
12207. Julia A. Wooley vs. Alfred Grayson
| ct al. Lawrence G. G. Affirmed Elliott, C.
| 1.-The question of title may be put in issue in
suit for partition and a counter-claim or cross
complaint is an appropriate method for present
| ing the question of title. e. Where land
was conveyed by husband and wife in trust
and the trustee brought suit against the grant
ors in the federal court, decree establishing the
validity of the conveyance is an adjudication of
the wife's rights. (3.l The special finding shows
the wife was a party to the suit brought by the
trustee, aud she is bound bv the decree, although
she was not formally defaulted.
DEoEDENTs NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF VENUE.
| 1927. Mathew E. Scherrer VS.. Geo. W. In
| german, Admir-. Hamilton c. Q. Reversed
| collars, J.-Where claim was filed against an
estate in 1868. but was not finally allowed until
| 1872. the cause of action accrued upon the al
lowance in 1872, and is governed by Sec 29a
allowing fifteen years. I'll The heirs. in a
proceeding for an order to sell their land to pay
claim against the estate, may defend and have
a trial of the claim upon its merits, notwith
standing it may have been allowed. The fac
that they were present and assisting in the de-
Tense does not render the judgment conclusive
against them. 81 Where an administrator
| filed petition to sell real estate to pay an al
lowance against the estate, the proceeding is il
such sense civil action that a party may hav,
a change of judge upon a proper application
Where such application states that the party
learned of the bias and prejudice Of the specia
judge after the case was called, it is sufficient